Parish Meeting discusses The Ghyll and Proposed 3G Pitch
- 2 hours ago
- 10 min read
Residents attended a Parish Meeting, also known as a meeting of electors, on 21 July 2026 to discuss The Ghyll field and the approved planning application for a 3G football pitch.
Photo credit: Southwater Village Hall
About the Parish Meeting
The meeting was chaired by Southwater Parish Council Chairman Cllr Derek Moore in a strictly procedural capacity in compliance with statutory requirements. Discussion focused on drainage and flooding risk, the use of land for community benefit, governance and transparency, financial sustainability, traffic and the potential long-term implications of the project.
As the Chairman made it clear to the attendees at the beginning of the meeting, this was not a meeting of Southwater Parish Council and it could not make legally binding decisions on behalf of the Council, Southwater Ghyll CIO, Horsham District Council or any other organisation. However, electors passed a number of resolutions which will be recorded and referred to the relevant organisations for their information and consideration.
For the full and authoritative record, residents should refer to the official minutes, which will be published by the Parish Council in due course. The following is a high-level summary of the principal matters discussed (not the official meeting minutes).
Meeting arrangements
At the beginning of the meeting, the Chair explained that:
only verified local government electors for Southwater Parish could vote;
electors requesting to speak were required to address the meeting through the Chair;
discussion had to remain within the published agenda concerning The Ghyll and the 3G pitch;
personal allegations, attacks of any named individuals and discussion of employee matters would not be permitted;
the meeting was required to remain respectful, safe and orderly; and
the Council was making a recording of the meeting.
Anyone making their own recording was reminded that they were responsible for complying with relevant legal requirements, including those relating to data protection, harassment and defamation.
Drainage, flooding risk and liability
One of the first issues raised was the drainage of the site and the possible effect of the proposed pitch on neighbouring homes.
Residents described the field as a natural drainage area serving surrounding properties, particularly because of the heavy clay soil and the way the land becomes saturated during periods of prolonged rainfall.
Questions were raised about whether the proposed construction and drainage design would:
accommodate increasingly intense rainfall;
include the appropriate allowances for climate change and future development;
contain water within the site; and
prevent additional flooding of neighbouring properties.
A resident with civil engineering experience said that the submitted design included a granular sub-base intended to store surface water. It was stated that a 45% climate change allowance had been included, but that a further 10% allowance associated with future urban development had not been incorporated as advisable by West Sussex County Council. The resident suggested that this could require additional storage beneath the pitch and potentially increase the cost of the project.
A representative of Southwater Ghyll CIO responded that the drainage system had been designed from the outset and would be revised if West Sussex County Council required further measures. It was stated that the system was intended to retain water within the site and avoid increasing off-site flooding.
Residents also asked who would be liable if the drainage system failed and neighbouring homes were damaged by flooding. Questions were raised about whether responsibility would rest with the CIO, the Parish Council, contractors or insurers. The Chair advised residents seeking a formal response to submit their questions in writing to the relevant organisation.
3G pitch or natural grass
Sporting need and capacity
Supporters of the 3G pitch, including representatives of local football clubs, emphasised the shortage of suitable football facilities in and around Southwater.
They argued that even high-quality natural grass pitches have limited capacity, require periods of recovery and can become unavailable during wet weather. A 3G pitch could accommodate more matches and training sessions throughout the week and over the year.
It was stated that many Southwater youth teams currently play outside of Southwater because suitable facilities are not available locally. Football representatives said the project could:
allow more children and young people to train and play within Southwater;
reduce reliance on facilities elsewhere;
support hundreds of players across different age groups; and
improve the long-term availability of local sporting provision in Southwater.
Reference was also made to previous work by Horsham District Council and Sussex FA identifying a shortage of artificial pitches across the wider district.
Arguments for a natural surface
Other residents supported the provision of football facilities but questioned whether a 3G pitch at The Ghyll was the appropriate solution.
A properly drained natural grass or hybrid pitch was suggested as an alternative that could potentially improve football provision while retaining a more open and accessible community space.
Supporters of the 3G proposal responded that a grass pitch would not provide the same playing capacity providing the pitches at Southwater Sports Club as an example and would therefore not meet the stated aim of allowing more local teams to play in the village.
Gifted land, public access and moral considerations
A substantial part of the meeting concerned the history and intended use of The Ghyll field.
Residents described the land as having been gifted for the use and benefit of the wider Southwater community. Several speakers argued that enclosing part of the field and operating it as a bookable sports facility would conflict with the spirit of that, even where the development had received planning permission.
The meeting passed a motion that the detailed legal covenants should not be debated at the meeting, as these were considered to be a matter between Southwater Parish Council and the Covenantees (“Piper Family”). Electors instead agreed to focus on the moral implications of changing the use and character of the land.
Those opposing the proposed all-weather pitch development argued that:
the field was intended to benefit the whole village rather than one principal sporting use;
fencing and controlled access could reduce informal use of the land;
the project could affect residents who use the space for walking, play and general recreation; and the effect on neighbouring households had not been given sufficient weight.
Concerns about neighbouring amenity included noise, floodlighting, fencing, regular evening use and the visual effect of the development.
Several residents stressed that opposition to the proposal should not be interpreted as opposition to football. They said they would support efforts to find an alternative location or surface that balanced sporting need with continued access to green space.
Supporters of the project argued that the proposal involved upgrading an existing adult football pitch rather than removing the whole recreation ground from public use. It was stated that a substantial grassed area would remain available for informal recreation, community events and other activities.
Alternative locations
Residents asked whether alternative sites had been fully investigated.
Phillips Field was discussed, together with land associated with future housing development elsewhere in Southwater. It was suggested that Section 106 funding or other sources could potentially be used to acquire and develop a different site.
The meeting was told that discussions concerning Phillips Field had taken place and that the landowner had recently confirmed in writing that the site was not available for purchase.
A resolution was subsequently passed requesting that information about previous enquiries and correspondence concerning Phillips Field be made publicly available by the Council.
Governance, transparency and conflicts of interest
Governance and transparency were major themes throughout the meeting.
Residents questioned the relationship between Southwater Parish Council, as owner of the land, and Southwater Ghyll CIO, which manages the leisure facilities.
Questions were raised about:
whether all Parish Councillors had been given sufficient information about the project;
why the Council had maintained a neutral position on a planning application affecting Council-owned land;
whether councillors had been able to debate and vote on the full implications of the project;
access to the CIO’s business plan, 3G pitch financial projections and legal advice;
the operation of the Leisure Management Agreement;
the Council’s ability to scrutinise or influence decisions made by Southwater Ghyll CIO; and how interests were being managed where councillors also served as trustees of Southwater Ghyll CIO.
Several speakers said the existing arrangements made it difficult for residents to understand where responsibility rested and whether the Council was able to exercise effective oversight.
A statement made near the end of the meeting explained that the Council had previously considered legal advice concerning whether it had the power to require Southwater Ghyll CIO to withdraw the planning application. It was explained that the Council did not have that general power, recognising that terminating the Leisure Management Agreement and taking back The Ghyll would be a serious step with potentially significant consequences and had therefore maintained its neutral position and allow it to be determined through the planning process.
A Parish Councillor attending the meeting as an elector also explained that work was underway on a proposal for the 3G pitch business plan to be examined by an appropriately qualified independent organisation.
Funding and financial sustainability
Residents repeatedly requested further information about the cost, funding and long-term financial viability of the project.
Questions included:
how much the development would cost;
how much Section 106 funding would be available;
what would happen if construction or drainage costs exceeded the available funding;
how the project would be funded if grant or developer contributions were insufficient;
the cost of operating and maintaining the pitch;
how and when the playing surface would be replaced;
whether sufficient income could be generated from bookings;
who would pay for the replacement, removal or disposal of the pitch at the end of its life; and whether future liabilities could ultimately fall on the Parish Council and local taxpayers.
It was explained that Section 106 funding is held and allocated by Horsham District Council for specified infrastructure purposes and is not currently money held by the Parish Council.
Representatives of local football clubs described the significant cost of hiring artificial pitches outside Southwater. It was suggested that a local facility could retain more of this expenditure within the village and provide a regular source of income.
Other residents argued that no firm conclusion about viability could be reached without a complete and current business plan setting out construction, operating, maintenance, replacement and end-of-life costs. Further concerns were raised that the CIO had not shared this information with the public.
Questions were also raised about the wider financial position of Southwater Ghyll CIO and the possible consequences if either the organisation or the pitch proved financially unsustainable.
The Chair of Southwater Ghyll CIO stated that the business plan was undergoing independent verification and that financial information would be made available once that process had been completed. No confirmed construction start date was provided, although it was suggested that a programme could be agreed once discussions with contractors and the business plan review had progressed.
Some residents also questioned the assumption that community assets must generate income, suggesting that their principal purpose should be to provide public benefit while remaining financially sustainable.
Environmental concerns
Residents raised concerns about the long-term environmental effect of an artificial pitch.
Issues included:
the use of plastic or rubber-based infill;
the possibility of material escaping into the surrounding environment;
limited recycling options for worn artificial surfaces;
the cost and environmental impact of replacing the pitch; and the risk of leaving a future removal and remediation liability.
A supporter of the project referred to the development of alternative infill materials, including cork-based products used in other countries, and suggested that more sustainable options might become available as technology and regulation change.
Traffic, parking and highways
Residents of Pevensey Road and nearby streets raised concerns about existing congestion, parking and the condition of the road and access to The Ghyll.
They questioned whether construction traffic and more intensive use of the facility could increase:
on-street parking;
traffic movements during evenings and weekends;
pressure on roads already affected by potholes;
risks to pedestrians and children; and noise and disturbance for neighbouring properties.
Questions were also raised about the use and availability of The Ghyll overflow car park.
These matters were noted during the meeting but were not resolved. Residents seeking formal responses were encouraged to raise detailed questions with the relevant organisations and highways authority.
Wider community facilities
The discussion also considered whether investment in the 3G pitch could reduce attention or resources available for other community priorities.
Residents asked why greater investment had not been made in facilities for younger children, particularly the play area at The Ghyll, which some speakers described as dated and in serious need of improvement.
It was argued that recreational investment should reflect the needs of the whole community, including children and residents who do not participate in football.
Supporters of the 3G pitch maintained that improving football provision would itself provide a significant community benefit, particularly for the large number of children currently travelling outside Southwater to play and train.
Resolutions of this Meeting of Electors
Electors passed a number of resolutions during the meeting. These included requests that:
Southwater Parish Council ask Southwater Ghyll CIO not to begin work on the 3G pitch until the option of providing a properly drained natural grass pitch had been reviewed.
Southwater Parish Council be given the opportunity to debate and vote on the 3G pitch after considering the relevant financial plans and legal advice.
Information concerning previous enquiries about the availability of acquiring Phillips Field be made public.
Parish Councillors without conflicts of interests receive greater transparency and involvement in future decision-making concerning Southwater Ghyll CIO and the 3G pitch.
Work should not begin until the Parish Council had considered the revised 3G pitch business plan, independent financial advice and relevant legal advice and had debated and voted on the project.
The meeting record that residents suggest that there was no confidence in the transparency, openness and governance arrangements between Southwater Parish Council and Southwater Ghyll CIO.
A separate proposal stating that Southwater was currently deficient in sporting provision and needed more sports facilities was not supported by a majority of the electors voting.
The resolutions above are only intended to summarise and provide an update of the Parish Meeting of Electors. The exact wording and record for each resolution will be set out in the official meeting minutes. The resolutions express the views of electors present at the meeting but do not legally bind Southwater Parish Council, Southwater Ghyll CIO or any other organisation.
Respectful debate
The meeting concluded with comments about the importance of respectful discussion.
It was acknowledged that healthy debate and scrutiny are important parts of local democracy, but speakers also referred to the effect that hostile interactions, personal allegations and repeated criticism can have on councillors, employees, trustees and volunteers.
Other residents responded that respect must work in both directions and that those raising concerns should not feel dismissed or prevented from expressing legitimate views.
Despite the strongly held and differing opinions expressed during the evening, there were repeated calls for better communication, greater openness and a willingness to work together to find solutions that benefit the wider Southwater community.
Next steps
The resolutions passed by the meeting will be recorded and referred to the relevant organisations for consideration.
This article is a high-level summary and is not intended to replace the meeting minutes as a formal record. Once available, residents should refer to the official meeting minutes on the Southwater Parish Council website for:
the full wording of motions and resolutions;
the recorded voting outcomes;
the complete comments and questions raised; and
any formal follow-up actions